1

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/05/2017 14:45:49 »

We also need to make the maths believable.

Absolutely Colin...................I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her. This is the very reason I have asked for us to progress at a pace which will allow her to understand the math. Without the ability to grasp what the math is telling us, I think timey will fail to understand the complexity of the difficult task which stands before us. As you have noted, the math must also be believable and that believability is only achieved through the experience offered us by experiment and the confirmation we achieve when repeatability of those experiments are recorded.

2

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 29/03/2017 00:38:25 »

Motion is always a mechanical transfer. Time = Motion = c energy.

LB7 yes electrons move as 1/w spin. Photons on the other hand move through space as a vector spherical radius as a wave of c energy.

Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

Ethos, yes why is there motion? Time is a fundamental energy transferring motion. Where did energy come from?

I would assume that the large majority of Physicists would answer that question with: "From the Big Bang".

As for me, that question is much more complicated than just simply blaming it all on The Big Bang. Surely, Energy was present before "The Big Bang" or there simply wouldn't have been any bang what-so-ever. I realize there are those that will disagree with this notion by conjuring up magical terms like: "Quantum Fluctuations" and claim that "The Big bang" simply happened without a required cause. I am unable to swallow that pill myself and have a personal theory about our Universal Genesis but will not bore our members with it at this time.

As a side; Something inclines me to the suspicion that Energy is directional akin to Entropy. While Entropy is the process by which the balance scales level out, so-to-speak, Energy or the available usage thereof will trend in that direction as well. According to the law of conservation, the total amount of Energy will still be there but will be inaccessible for use when Entropy has run it's course. Entropy has a direction and useful Energy rides along on the same train.

Alas, I confess to having no experimentally processed answer to your question; "Where did Energy come from?" I, and no one else has the ability to observe what lies beyond "The Big Bang" and the answer to that question will remain hidden for a great long while if not for ever.

3

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 27/03/2017 22:01:45 »

?

Curious question my friend, and one that will receive many different answers I'm sure. As to the cause, it all depends on the physical circumstances surrounding each independent frame relative to all others. I would rather answer this question: "Why is there motion?"

My answer: "Time",.............The fourth dimension.

4

New Theories / Re: Creationism?

« on: 24/11/2016 23:14:33 »

I'm not even trying to convince you that you are definitely wrong. All I want you to do is to realize that there is a chance you might be wrong.

Searching out our errors and understanding them is great therapy and prepares us for new insight into many mysteries. If we do not seek out our personal errors, we are prepared to learn nothing.

5

New Theories / Re: I think space must have a physicality!

« on: 21/11/2016 15:18:10 »

Space must have physicality ...

No.....................Space is just a place where physicality can exist. And when you breath in air expanding your lungs, you are not creating new space, that space was already there before you took that breath.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the big bang be in an infinite repeating cycle?

« on: 15/11/2016 18:02:40 »

When speculating about the so-called "Big Crunch", I think it is a mistake to assume that the cosmos is finite to begin with. If instead, the cosmos is infinite and our observed Big Bang is really only a local "White hole" event, then maybe we can start speculating about what the mass limit might be for black holes.

Just consider the possibility that if the cosmos is in fact infinite, other big bangs may be occurring all the time but are too far outside our observational parameter. Maybe the truth is: Our "Big Bang" really isn't all that big when one considers the possibility of an infinite cosmos.

7

Just Chat! / Re: Is stupidity rising??

« on: 12/11/2016 22:53:23 »

Stupidity is to use civilians as puppets to make violent riots staged by professional protesters.

It would be interesting to know how many of these protesters actually voted wouldn't it.

Political tolerance seems to only apply to those who happen to agree with their fellow progressives. I suggest that everyone had the opportunity to vote and should accept the results of that vote. Both parties offered the electorate a poor choice, one is a criminal, the other is a loud mouth. It appears the one with the loudest mouth won.

Am I happy with the choice we had? Absolutely not! But my vote was cast in opposition to the criminal that, it strongly appears, would have either sold the USA out from under our feet or simply given it away as a favor to some foreign government.

At least, I voted and am honest enough to detail my reasons for the vote I cast. People don't have to like the results of the election, and frankly, I'm not totally satisfied with the results myself. But for Heaven's sake, I wish everyone would quit acting like spoiled children and deal with it. I'm sick to death with all the whining and moaning going on from both sides, especially coming from those living outside of the US............................enough said.

8

New Theories / Re: Does spin plus aether equal matter?

« on: 01/09/2016 13:30:11 »

The universe is a simple place

If that were true, why are so many credible physicists still struggling to understand it's complexities? Frankly, after scrutinizing your explanation, the only thing I see spinning are the heads of those credible physicists.

Most physicists don't want the universe to be simple because you can't make a living out of explaining how a simple universe works because it is simple. On the other hand, a complex universe with hundreds of sub-atomic particles is a far more attractive a proposition, with lots of complications and lots of explaining to do and research grants in finding out how these particles behave.

You make a fair point there sir, but now what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory. Science requires more than a philosophical explanation. While I agree that spin is significant when studying the subatomic world, I doubt that a peer review will be successful by incorporating said Aether into your Hypothesis.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time move at the speed of light?

« on: 15/08/2016 03:00:47 »

The term "speed of time" has no logical meaning. The word "time" refers to the passage of events only and when scrutinizing different events, we record the sequence of those events using the standard second. If as you ask: "Does time move at the speed of light?", what are we to make of the theoretical Tachyon who's speed is always faster than c?

If time only moves at the speed of light, then the theoretical existence of the Tachyon wouldn't have any merit.

Considering that the Tachyon is a theoretically recognized particle, every physicist that considers their possible existence should re-evaluate their reasons for investing in such a theory.

Time has no speed my friend, it is only a reference marker between sequential events.....................

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the diameter of all of the universe?

« on: 27/06/2016 00:42:48 »

I disagree the "Box is here simply to disrupt meaningful dialogue between lucid members, who have insightful substance between their ears, with his constant stubborn meaningless, nonsensical, ambiguous insistence that he can see light before it reaches his eyes.

You may be right Alan, I have also wondered about his motives for some time now. Thinking that he surely couldn't be as ignorant as his posts seem to suggest. However, the possibility still remains that he may just be that ignorant and naïve and just can't help showing that ignorance from time to time.

"He is hijacking this thread with his rubbish"

Alan

About that, fact I totally agree..........................

11

Just Chat! / Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)

« on: 18/02/2016 23:51:00 »

I'm finished for tonight, NASCAR is calling my name. Suddenly makes more sense to me than this free-for-all and it's Prosecutorial instigator.

12

New Theories / Re: Does sight work the way we think it works?

« on: 16/02/2016 16:07:46 »

Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.

Incredible..................Now Mr. Box, you're showing us your abject ignorance. I'm wasting my time with you sir.

You asked me a question, I can only guess at a way to know, that is not ignorant that is me thinking of an answer to give you. 

Mr. Box, we have a star in our own solar system, it's referred to as the Sun. From this evidence alone, we know that stars come in different sizes. This is evidence that your answer was hasty and lacked credibility, thus the use of the term "ignorant". Ignorance does not mean stupid, ignorance is a word that defines lack of knowledge or the impetuous use of the knowledge one presently possesses.

Listen my friend, we all recognize that you're not stupid. Your mind is searching for answers and that is admirable. However, until you are willing to learn from others, your hunger for scientific knowledge will suffer greatly. We offer our answers and you continually seek to either ignore them or brush them off as insufficient and or flawed.

None of us are perfect but IMHO, the answers you'll receive here are worthy of consideration and you insult us with your cavalier attitude. I have just about had it with your obstinate positions Mr. Box. If you continue to gloss over and minimize the worthiness of my answers, I will eventually acquaint you with my ignore list.

If you continue to be disenchanted with the answers you receive from us, you might consider just not asking in the first place. Enough said......................

13

General Science / Re: Why are bricks rectangular, not triangular?

« on: 09/02/2016 19:05:45 »

So what if we compare triangular bricks and traditional bricks in lab? Do you all think it would be a good project?

Comparing their relative strengths would be interesting but what remains the key consideration here is the strength of the mortar and how this mortar is positioned relative to gravity and shear forces. It has already been correctly mentioned that bricks laid in positions other than horizontal to each other would apply greater fractural stress causing the mortar to fail. Such would be the case when trying to construct a wall made of triangle bricks.

14

New Theories / Re: Every moment in time is the same moment!

« on: 19/01/2016 21:12:14 »

Actually, name calling and resorting to insults is "crazy" in my book. Achieves nothing, supports nothing, and leaves us all wondering why we even come here. I suggest that we all take a breather and try to explain our views and opinions with some respect for other members whether we agree with them or not. If you want to behave like adolescents, you might consider "playing" at another playground!

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is consciousness a metaphysical experience of reality?

« on: 23/12/2015 17:58:41 »

A few thoughts about AI:

Could an AI computer feel sorrow or regret when faced with an error of it's own making?

Could an AI computer fall in love with another AI computer without being instructed to do so?

Could an AI computer appreciate art to the extent that it could distinguish between beauty and ugliness also without instruction?

And lastly, could an AI computer enjoy the activity of "playing" even though the "playing" had no specific profit or progress as it's goal?

I frankly don't know the answers to these questions myself and I would hazard a guess that it's highly unlikely that definitive answers to these questions will ever be answered with any degree of certainty.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Has there been only ONE Big Bang???

« on: 13/11/2015 13:57:37 »

What do you think is the possibility of this ideal having some kind of possibility?

Our current model, suggesting that a singular Big Bang is most likely, has been widely accepted. And the physics involved with producing any other theory is very limited. In fact, it may be quite impossible for us to ever know whether other such Big Bangs have happened or will possibly ever happen again. On that score, it is highly likely that this topic will evolve into speculative conjecture. In that event, it may be safe to say that this thread belongs in the New Theories section.